Network Working Group S. Niccolini
Request for Comments: 5388 S. Tartarelli
Category: Standards Track J. Quittek
T. Dietz
NEC
M. Swany
UDel
December 2008
Information Model and XML Data Model for Traceroute Measurements
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2008 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
This document describes a standard way to store the configuration and
the results of traceroute measurements. This document first
describes the terminology used in this document and the traceroute
tool itself; afterwards, the common information model is defined,
dividing the information elements into two semantically separated
groups (configuration elements and results elements). Moreover, an
additional element is defined to relate configuration elements and
results elements by means of a common unique identifier. On the
basis of the information model, a data model based on XML is defined
to store the results of traceroute measurements.
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. Terminology Used in This Document ...............................3
3. The Traceroute Tool and Its Operations ..........................4
4. Results of Traceroute Measurements ..............................5
5. Information Model for Traceroute Measurements ...................5
5.1. Data Types .................................................6
5.2. Information Elements .......................................7
5.2.1. Relationships between the Information Elements ......7
5.2.2. Configuration Information Elements .................12
5.2.3. Results Information Elements .......................17
5.2.4. Information Element Correlating
Configuration and Results ..........................21
5.2.5. Information Elements to Compare Traceroute
Measurement Results ................................22
6. Data Model for Storing Traceroute Measurements .................23
7. XML Schema for Traceroute Measurements .........................24
8. Security Considerations ........................................38
8.1. Conducting Traceroute Measurements ........................39
8.2. Securing Traceroute Measurement Information ...............39
9. IANA Considerations ............................................40
10. References ....................................................40
10.1. Normative References .....................................40
10.2. Informative References ...................................41
Appendix A. Traceroute Default Configuration Parameters ...........43
A.1. Alternative Traceroute Implementations ....................46
Appendix B. Known Problems with Traceroute ........................47
B.1. Compatibility between Traceroute Measurement Results
and IPPM Metrics ..........................................47
Appendix C. Differences to DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB ..................47
C.1. Scope .....................................................48
C.2. Naming ....................................................49
C.3. Semantics .................................................49
C.4. Additional Information Elements ...........................50
Appendix D. Traceroute Examples with XML Representation ...........50
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
1. Introduction
Traceroutes are used by lots of measurement efforts, either as
independent measurements or as a means of getting path information to
support other measurement efforts. That is why there is the need to
standardize the way the configuration and the results of traceroute
measurements are stored. The standard metrics defined by the IPPM
group in matters of delay, connectivity, and losses do not apply to
the metrics returned by the traceroute tool. Therefore, in order to
compare results of traceroute measurements, the only possibility is
to add to the stored results a specification of the operating system
as well as the name and version for the traceroute tool used. This
document, in order to store results of traceroute measurements and
allow comparison of them, defines a standard way to store them using
an XML schema.
The document is organized as follows: Section 2 defines the
terminology used in this document; Section 3 describes the traceroute
tool; Section 4 describes the results of a traceroute measurement as
displayed to the screen from which the traceroute tool was launched;
Section 5 and Section 6, respectively, describe the information model
and data model for storing configuration and results of the
traceroute measurements; Section 7 contains the XML schema to be used
as a template for storing and/or exchanging traceroute measurement
information; the document ends with security considerations and IANA
considerations in Section 8 and Section 9 respectively.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Terminology Used in This Document
The terminology used in this document is defined as follows:
o traceroute tool: a software tool for network diagnostic that
behaves as described in Section 3;
o traceroute measurement: an instance of the traceroute tool
launched, with specific configuration parameters (traceroute
measurement configuration parameters), from a specific host
(initiator of the traceroute measurement) giving as output
specific traceroute measurement results;
o traceroute probe: one of many IP packets sent out by the
traceroute tool during a traceroute measurement;
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
o traceroute measurement configuration parameters: the configuration
parameters of a traceroute measurement;
o traceroute measurement results: the results of a traceroute
measurement;
o traceroute measurement information: both the results and the
configuration parameters of a traceroute measurement;
o traceroute measurement path: a sequence of hosts transited in
order by traceroute probes during a traceroute measurement.
3. The Traceroute Tool and Its Operations
Traceroute is a network diagnostic tool used to determine the hop-by-
hop path from a source to a destination and the Round Trip Time (RTT)
from the source to each hop. Traceroute can be therefore used to
discover some information (hop counts, delays, etc.) about the path
between the initiator of the traceroute measurement and other hosts.
Typically, the traceroute tool attempts to discover the path to a
destination by sending UDP probes with specific time-to-live (TTL)
values in the IP packet header and trying to elicit an ICMP
TIME_EXCEEDED response from each gateway along the path to some host.
In more detail, a first set of probes with TTL equal to 1 is sent by
the traceroute tool from the host initiating the traceroute
measurement (some tool implementations allow setting the initial TTL
to a value equal to "n" different from 1, so that the first "n-1"
hops are skipped and the first hop that will be traced is the "n-th"
in the path). Upon receiving a probe, the first hop host decreases
the TTL value (by one or more). By observing a TTL value equal to
zero, the host rejects the probe and typically returns an ICMP
message with a TIME_EXCEEDED value. The traceroute tool can
therefore derive the IP address of the first hop from the header of
the ICMP message and evaluate the RTT between the host initiating the
traceroute measurement and the first hop. The next hops are
discovered following the same procedure, taking care to increase at
each step the TTL value of the probes by one. The TTL value is
increased until either an ICMP PORT_UNREACHABLE message is received,
meaning that the destination host has been reached, or the maximum
configured number of hops has been hit.
Some implementations use ICMP Echoes, instead of UDP datagrams.
However, many routers do not return ICMP messages about ICMP
messages, i.e., no ICMP TIME_EXCEEDED is returned for an ICMP Echo.
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
Therefore, this document recommends to base implementations on UDP
datagrams. Considerations on TCP-based implementations of the
traceroute tool are reported in Appendix A.1.
4. Results of Traceroute Measurements
The following list reports the information fields provided as results
by all traceroute tool implementations considered. The order in
which they are reported here is not relevant and changes in different
implementations. For each hop, the following information is
reported:
o the hop index;
o the host symbolic address, provided that at least one of the
probes received a response, the symbolic address could be resolved
at the corresponding host, and the option to display only
numerical addresses was not set;
o the host IP address, provided that at least one of the probes
received a response;
o the RTT for each response to a probe.
Depending on the traceroute tool implementation, additional
information might be displayed in the output (for instance, MPLS-
related information).
It might happen that some probes do not receive a response within the
configured timeout (for instance, if the probe is filtered out by a
firewall). In this case, an "*" is displayed in place of the RTT.
The information model reflects this using a string with the value of
"RoundTripTimeNotAvailable", meaning either the probe was lost
because of a timeout or it was not possible to transmit a probe. It
may also happen that some implementations print the same line
multiple times when a router decreases the TTL by more than one, thus
looking like multiple hops. The information model is not impacted by
this since each line is handled separately; it is left to the
applications handling the XML file how to deal with it. Moreover,
for delays below 1 ms, some implementations report 0 ms (e.g., UNIX
and LINUX), while WINDOWS reports "< 1 ms".
5. Information Model for Traceroute Measurements
The information model is composed of information elements; for
defining these information elements, a template is used. Such
template is specified in the list below:
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
o name - A unique and meaningful name for the information element.
The preferred spelling for the name is to use mixed case if the
name is compound, with an initial lower-case letter, e.g.,
"sourceIpAddress".
o description - The semantics of this information element.
o dataType - One of the types listed in Section 5.1 of this document
or in an extension of the information model. The type space for
attributes is constrained to facilitate implementation.
o units - If the element is a measure of some kind, the units
identify what the measure is.
5.1. Data Types
This section describes the set of basic valid data types of the
information model.
o string - The type "string" represents a finite-length string of
valid characters from the Unicode character encoding set. Unicode
allows for ASCII and many other international character sets to be
used. It is expected that strings will be encoded in UTF-8
format, which is identical in encoding for US-ASCII characters but
which also accommodates other Unicode multi-byte characters.
o string255 - Same type as "string" but with the restriction of 255
characters.
o inetAddressType - The type "inetAddressType" represents a type of
Internet address. The allowed values are imported from [RFC4001]
(where the intent was to import only some of the values);
additional allowed values are "asnumber" and "noSpecification".
o inetAddress - The type "inetAddress" denotes a generic Internet
address. The allowed values are imported from [RFC4001] (the
values imported are unknown, ipv4, ipv6, and dns), while non-
global IPv4/IPv6 addresses (e.g., ipv4z and ipv6z) are excluded;
an additional allowed value is the AS number, indicated as the
actual number plus the indication of how the mapping from IP
address to AS number was performed. "Unknown" is used to indicate
an IP address that is not in one of the formats defined.
o ipASNumberMappingType - The type "ipASNumberMappingType"
represents a type of mapping from IP to AS number, it indicates
the method that was used to do get the mapping (allowed values are
"bgptables", "routingregistries", "nslookup", "others" or
"unknown").
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
o boolean - The type "boolean" represents a boolean value according
to XML standards [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028].
o unsignedInt - The type "unsignedInt" represents a value in the
range (0..4294967295).
o unsignedShort - The type "unsignedShort" represents a value in the
range (0..65535).
o unsignedByte - The type "unsignedByte" represents a value in the
range (0..255).
o u8nonzero - The type "u8nonzero" represents a value in the range
(1..255).
o probesType - The type "probesType" represents a way of indicating
the protocol used for the traceroute probes. Values defined in
this document are UDP, TCP, and ICMP.
o operationResponseStatus - The type "operationResponseStatus" is
used to report the result of an operation. The allowed values are
imported from [RFC4560].
o dateTime - The type "dateTime" represents a date-time
specification according to XML standards
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028] but is restricted to the values
defined in [RFC3339].
5.2. Information Elements
This section describes the elements related to the storing of a
traceroute measurement. The elements are grouped in two groups
(configuration and results) according to their semantics. In order
to relate configuration and results elements by means of a common
unique identifier, an additional element is defined belonging to both
groups.
5.2.1. Relationships between the Information Elements
Every traceroute measurement is represented by an instance of the
"traceRoute" element. This class provides a standardized
representation for traceroute measurement data. The "traceroute"
element is an element that can be composed of (depending on the
nature of the traceroute measurement):
o 1 optional "RequestMetadata" element;
o 0..2147483647 "Measurement" elements.
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
Each "Measurement" element contains:
o 1 optional "MeasurementMetadata" element;
o 0..2147483647 "MeasurementResult" elements.
The "RequestMetadata" element can be used for specifying parameters
of a traceroute measurement to be performed at one or more nodes by
one or more traceroute implementations. Depending on the
capabilities of a traceroute implementation, not all requested
parameters can be applied. Which parameters have actually been
applied for a specific traceroute measurement is specified in a
"MeasurementMetadata" element.
The "RequestMetadata" element is a sequence that contains:
o 1 "TestName" element;
o 1 optional "ToolVersion" element;
o 1 optional "ToolName" element;
o 1 "CtlTargetAddress" element;
o 1 optional "CtlBypassRouteTable" element;
o 1 optional "CtlProbeDataSize" element;
o 1 optional "CtlTimeOut" element;
o 1 optional "CtlProbesPerHop" element;
o 1 optional "CtlPort" element;
o 1 optional "CtlMaxTtl" element;
o 1 optional "CtlDSField" element;
o 1 optional "CtlSourceAddress" element;
o 1 optional "CtlIfIndex" element;
o 1 optional "CtlMiscOptions" element;
o 1 optional "CtlMaxFailures" element;
o 1 optional "CtlDontFragment" element;
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
o 1 optional "CtlInitialTtl" element;
o 1 optional "CtlDescr" element;
o 1 "CtlType" element.
If the "RequestMetadata" element is omitted from an XML file, it
means that the traceroute measurement configuration parameters
requested were all used and the "MeasurementMetadata" element lists
them in detail.
The "MeasurementMetadata" element is a sequence that contains:
o 1 "TestName" element;
o 1 "OSName" element;
o 1 "OSVersion" element;
o 1 "ToolVersion" element;
o 1 "ToolName" element;
o 1 "CtlTargetAddressType" element;
o 1 "CtlTargetAddress" element;
o 1 "CtlBypassRouteTable" element;
o 1 "CtlProbeDataSize" element;
o 1 "CtlTimeOut" element;
o 1 "CtlProbesPerHop" element;
o 1 "CtlPort" element;
o 1 "CtlMaxTtl" element;
o 1 "CtlDSField" element;
o 1 "CtlSourceAddressType" element;
o 1 "CtlSourceAddress" element;
o 1 "CtlIfIndex" element;
o 1 optional "CtlMiscOptions" element;
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
o 1 "CtlMaxFailures" element;
o 1 "CtlDontFragment" element;
o 1 "CtlInitialTtl" element;
o 1 optional "CtlDescr" element;
o 1 "CtlType" element.
Configuration information elements can describe not just traceroute
measurements that have already happened ("MeasurementMetadata"
elements), but also the configuration to be used when requesting a
measurement to be made ("RequestMetadata" element). This is quite
different semantically, even if the individual information elements
are similar. Due to this similarity, both "RequestMetadata" and
"MeasurementMetadata" are represented by the same type in the XML
schema. All elements that are missing from the "RequestMetadata" or
marked as optional in the "RequestMetadata" but mandatory in the
"MeasurementMetadata" must be specified as empty elements.
Specifying them as empty elements means use the default value. The
"CtlType" element could have been optional in the "RequestMetadata",
but since default values cannot be specified for complex types in an
XML schema, the element is mandatory in the "RequestMetadata".
The "MeasurementResult" element is a sequence that contains:
o 1 "TestName" element;
o 1 "ResultsStartDateAndTime" element;
o 1 "ResultsIpTgtAddrType" element;
o 1 "ResultsIpTgtAddr" element;
o 1 "ProbeResults" elements;
o 1 "ResultsEndDateAndTime" element.
Additionally, it is important to say that each "ProbeResults" element
is a sequence that contains:
o 1..255 "hop" elements.
Each "hop" element is a sequence that contains:
o 1..10 "probe" elements;
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
o 1 optional "HopRawOutputData" element.
Each "probe" element contains:
o 1 "HopAddrType" element;
o 1 "HopAddr" element;
o 1 optional "HopName" element;
o 0..255 optional "MPLSLabelStackEntry" elements;
o 1 "ProbedRoundTripTime" element;
o 1 "ResponseStatus" element;
o 1 "Time" element.
Different numbers of appearances of the three basic elements in the
XML file are meant for different scopes:
o a file with only 1 "RequestMetadata" element represents a file
containing the traceroute measurement configuration parameters of
a traceroute measurement; it can be used to distribute the
traceroute measurement configuration parameters over multiple
nodes asked to run the same traceroute measurement;
o a file with 1 "Measurement" element containing 1
"MeasurementMetadata" and 1 "MeasurementResult" element represents
a file containing the traceroute measurement information of a
traceroute measurement;
o a file with 1 "Measurement" element containing 1
"MeasurementMetadata" and n "MeasurementResult" elements
represents a file containing the traceroute measurement
information of a set of traceroute measurements run over different
times with always the same traceroute measurement configuration
parameters;
o a file with 1 "RequestMetadata" and 1 "Measurement" element
containing 1 "MeasurementMetadata" and 1 "Measurement" element
represents a file containing the traceroute measurement
information of a traceroute measurement (containing both the
requested traceroute measurement configuration parameters and the
ones actually used);
o other combinations are possible to store multiple traceroute
measurements all in one XML file.
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
5.2.2. Configuration Information Elements
This section describes the elements specific to the configuration of
the traceroute measurement (belonging to both the "RequestMetadata"
and "MeasurementMetadata" elements).
5.2.2.1. CtlTargetAddressType
o name - CtlTargetAddressType
o description - Specifies the type of address in the corresponding
"CtlTargetAddress" element. This element is not directly
reflected in the XML schema of Section 7. The host address type
can be determined by examining the inetAddress type name and the
corresponding element value.
o dataType - inetAddressType
o units - N/A
5.2.2.2. CtlTargetAddress
o name - CtlTargetAddress
o description - In the "RequestMetadata" element, it specifies the
host address requested to be used in the traceroute measurement.
In the "MeasurementMetadata" element, it specifies the host
address used in the traceroute measurement.
o dataType - inetAddress
o units - N/A
5.2.2.3. CtlBypassRouteTable
o name - CtlBypassRouteTable
o description - In the "RequestMetadata" element, specifies if the
optional bypassing of the route table was enabled or not. In the
"MeasurementMetadata" element, specifies if the optional bypassing
of the route table was enabled or not. If enabled, the normal
routing tables will be bypassed and the probes will be sent
directly to a host on an attached network. If the host is not on
a directly attached network, an error is returned. This option
can be used to perform the traceroute measurement to a local host
through an interface that has no route defined. This object can
be used when the setsockopt SOL_SOCKET SO_DONTROUTE option is
supported and set (see [IEEE.1003-1G.1997]).
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
o dataType - boolean
o units - N/A
5.2.2.4. CtlProbeDataSize
o name - CtlProbeDataSize
o description - Specifies the size of the probes of a traceroute
measurement in octets (requested if in the "RequestMetadata"
element, actually used if in the "MeasurementMetadata" element).
If UDP datagrams are used as probes, then the value contained in
this object is exact. If another protocol is used to transmit
probes (i.e., TCP or ICMP), for which the specified size is not
appropriate, then the implementation can use whatever size
(appropriate to the method) is closest to the specified size. The
maximum value for this object is computed by subtracting the
smallest possible IP header size of 20 octets (IPv4 header with no
options) and the UDP header size of 8 octets from the maximum IP
packet size. An IP packet has a maximum size of 65535 octets
(excluding IPv6 jumbograms).
o dataType - unsignedShort
o units - octets
5.2.2.5. CtlTimeOut
o name - CtlTimeOut
o description - Specifies the timeout value, in seconds, for each
probe of a traceroute measurement (requested if in the
"RequestMetadata" element, actually used if in the
"MeasurementMetadata" element).
o dataType - unsignedByte
o units - seconds
5.2.2.6. CtlProbesPerHop
o name - CtlProbesPerHop
o description - Specifies the number of probes with the same time-
to-live (TTL) value that are sent for each host (requested if in
the "RequestMetadata" element, actually used if in the
"MeasurementMetadata" element).
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
o dataType - unsignedByte
o units - probes
5.2.2.7. CtlPort
o name - CtlPort
o description - Specifies the base port used by the traceroute
measurement (requested if in the "RequestMetadata" element,
actually used if in the "MeasurementMetadata" element).
o dataType - unsignedShort
o units - port number
5.2.2.8. CtlMaxTtl
o name - CtlMaxTtl
o description - Specifies the maximum TTL value for the traceroute
measurement (requested if in the "RequestMetadata" element,
actually used if in the "MeasurementMetadata" element).
o dataType - u8nonzero
o units - time-to-live value
5.2.2.9. CtlDSField
o name - CtlDSField
o description - Specifies the value that was requested to be stored
in the Differentiated Services (DS) field in the traceroute probe
(if in the "RequestMetadata" element). Specifies the value that
was stored in the Differentiated Services (DS) field in the
traceroute probe (if in the "MeasurementMetadata" element). The
DS field is defined as the Type of Service (TOS) octet in an IPv4
header or as the Traffic Class octet in an IPv6 header (see
Section 7 of [RFC2460]). The value of this object must be a
decimal integer in the range from 0 to 255. This option can be
used to determine what effect an explicit DS field setting has on
a traceroute measurement and its probes. Not all values are legal
or meaningful. Useful TOS octet values are probably 16 (low
delay) and 8 (high throughput). Further references can be found
in [RFC2474] for the definition of the Differentiated Services
(DS) field and in [RFC1812] Section 5.3.2 for Type of Service
(TOS).
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
o dataType - unsignedByte
o units - N/A
5.2.2.10. CtlSourceAddressType
o name - CtlSourceAddressType
o description - Specifies the type of address in the corresponding
"CtlSourceAddress" element. This element is not directly
reflected in the XML schema of Section 7. The host address type
can be determined by examining the "inetAddress" type name and the
corresponding element value. DNS names are not allowed for the
"CtlSourceAddress".
o dataType - inetAddressType
o units - N/A
5.2.2.11. CtlSourceAddress
o name - CtlSourceAddress
o description - Specifies the IP address (which has to be given as
an IP number, not a hostname) as the source address in traceroute
probes (requested if in the "RequestMetadata" element, actually
used if in the "MeasurementMetadata" element). On hosts with more
than one IP address, this option can be used in the
"RequestMetadata" element to force the source address to be
something other than the primary IP address of the interface the
probe is sent on; the value "unknown" means the default address
will be used.
o dataType - inetAddress
o units - N/A
5.2.2.12. CtlIfIndex
o name - CtlIfIndex
o description - Specifies the interface index as defined in
[RFC2863] that is requested to be used in the traceroute
measurement for sending the traceroute probes (if in the
"RequestMetadata" element). A value of 0 indicates that no
specific interface is requested. Specifies the interface index
actually used (if in the "MeasurementMetadata" element).
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
o dataType - unsignedInt
o units - N/A
5.2.2.13. CtlMiscOptions
o name - CtlMiscOptions
o description - Specifies implementation-dependent options
(requested if in the "RequestMetadata" element, actually used if
in the "MeasurementMetadata" element).
o dataType - string255
o units - N/A
5.2.2.14. CtlMaxFailures
o name - CtlMaxFailures
o description - Specifies the maximum number of consecutive timeouts
allowed before terminating a traceroute measurement (requested if
in the "RequestMetadata" element, actually used if in the
"MeasurementMetadata" element). A value of either 255 (maximum
hop count/possible TTL value) or 0 indicates that the function of
terminating a remote traceroute measurement when a specific number
of consecutive timeouts are detected was disabled. This element
is included to give full compatibility with [RFC4560]. No known
implementation of traceroute currently supports it.
o dataType - Unsigned8
o units - timeouts
5.2.2.15. CtlDontFragment
o name - CtlDontFragment
o description - Specifies if the don't fragment (DF) flag in the IP
header for a probe was enabled or not (if in the
"MeasurementMetadata" element). If in the "RequestMetadata", it
specifies if the flag was requested to be enabled or not. Setting
the DF flag can be used for performing a manual PATH MTU test.
o dataType - boolean
o units - N/A
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
5.2.2.16. CtlInitialTtl
o name - CtlInitialTtl
o description - Specifies the initial TTL value for a traceroute
measurement (requested if in the "RequestMetadata" element,
actually used if in the "MeasurementMetadata" element). Such TTL
setting is intended to bypass the initial (often well-known)
portion of a path.
o dataType - u8nonzero
o units - N/A
5.2.2.17. CtlDescr
o name - CtlDescr
o description - Provides a description of the traceroute
measurement.
o dataType - string255
o units - N/A
5.2.2.18. CtlType
o name - CtlType
o description - Specifies the implementation method used for the
traceroute measurement (requested if in the "RequestMetadata"
element, actually used if in the "MeasurementMetadata" element).
It specifies if the traceroute is using TCP, UDP, ICMP, or other
types of probes. It is possible to specify other types of probes
by using an element specified in another schema with a different
namespace.
o dataType - probesType
o units - N/A
5.2.3. Results Information Elements
This section describes the elements specific to the results of the
traceroute measurement.
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
5.2.3.1. ResultsStartDateAndTime
o name - ResultsStartDateAndTime
o description - Specifies the date and start time of the traceroute
measurement. This is the time when the first probe was seen at
the sending interface.
o dataType - DateTime
o units - N/A
5.2.3.2. ResultsIpTgtAddrType
o name - ResultsIpTgtAddrType
o description - Specifies the type of address in the corresponding
"ResultsIpTgtAddr" element. This element is not directly
reflected in the XML schema of Section 7. The host address type
can be determined by examining the "inetAddress" type name and the
corresponding element value.
o dataType - inetAddressType
o units - N/A
5.2.3.3. ResultsIpTgtAddr
o name - ResultsIpTgtAddr
o description - Specifies the IP address associated with a
"CtlTargetAddress" value when the destination address is specified
as a DNS name. The value of this object should be "unknown" if a
DNS name is not specified or if a specified DNS name fails to
resolve.
o dataType - inetAddress
o units - N/A
5.2.3.4. HopAddrType
o name - HopAddrType
o description - Specifies the type of address in the corresponding
"HopAddr" element. This element is not directly reflected in the
XML schema of Section 7. The host address type can be determined
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
by examining the "inetAddress" type name and the corresponding
element value. DNS names are not allowed for "HopAddr".
o dataType - inetAddressType
o units - N/A
5.2.3.5. HopAddr
o name - HopAddr
o description - Specifies the address of a hop in the traceroute
measurement path. This object is not allowed to be a DNS name.
o dataType - inetAddress
o units - N/A
5.2.3.6. HopName
o name - HopName
o description - Specifies the DNS name of the "HopAddr" if it is
available. If it is not available, the element is omitted.
o dataType - inetAddress
o units - N/A
5.2.3.7. MPLSLabelStackEntry
o name - MPLSLabelStackEntry
o description - Specifies entries of the MPLS label stack of a probe
observed when the probe arrived at the hop that replied to the
probe. This object contains one MPLS label stack entry as a
32-bit value as it is observed on the MPLS label stack. Contained
in this single number are the MPLS label, the Exp field, the S
flag, and the MPLS TTL value as specified in [RFC3032]. If more
than one MPLS label stack entry is reported, then multiple
instances of elements of this type are used. They must be ordered
in the same order as on the label stack with the top label stack
entry being reported first.
o dataType - unsignedInt
o units - N/A
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
5.2.3.8. ProbeRoundTripTime
o name - ProbeRoundTripTime
o description - If this element contains the element
"roundTripTime", this specifies the amount of time measured in
milliseconds from when a probe was sent to when its response was
received or when it timed out. The value of this element is
reported as the truncation of the number reported by the
traceroute tool (the output "< 1 ms" is therefore encoded as 0
ms). If it contains the element "roundTripTimeNotAvailable", it
means either the probe was lost because of a timeout or it was not
possible to transmit a probe.
o dataType - unsignedShort or string
o units - milliseconds or N/A
5.2.3.9. ResponseStatus
o name - ResponseStatus
o description - Specifies the result of a traceroute measurement
made by the host for a particular probe.
o dataType - operationResponseStatus
o units - N/A
5.2.3.10. Time
o name - Time
o description - Specifies the timestamp for the time the response to
the probe was received at the interface.
o dataType - DateTime
o units - N/A
5.2.3.11. ResultsEndDateAndTime
o name - ResultsEndDateAndTime
o description - Specifies the date and end time of the traceroute
measurement. It is either the time when the response to the last
probe of the traceroute measurement was received or the time when
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
the last probe of the traceroute measurement was sent plus the
relative timeout (in case of a missing response).
o dataType - DateTime
o units - N/A
5.2.3.12. HopRawOutputData
o name - HopRawOutputData
o description - Specifies the raw output data returned by the
traceroute measurement for a certain hop in a traceroute
measurement path. It is an implementation-dependent, printable
string, expected to be useful for a human interpreting the
traceroute results.
o dataType - string
o units - N/A
5.2.4. Information Element Correlating Configuration and Results
Elements
This section defines an additional element belonging to both previous
groups (configuration elements and results elements) named
"TestName". This element is defined in order to relate configuration
and results elements by means of a common unique identifier (to be
chosen in accordance to the specification of [RFC4560]).
5.2.4.1. TestName
o name - TestName
o description - Specifies the name of a traceroute measurement.
This is not necessarily unique within any well-defined scope
(e.g., a specific host, initiator of the traceroute measurement).
o dataType - string255
o units - N/A
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
5.2.5. Information Elements to Compare Traceroute Measurement Results
with Each Other
This section defines additional elements belonging to both previous
groups (configuration elements and results elements); these elements
were defined in order to allow traceroute measurement results
comparison among different traceroute measurements.
5.2.5.1. OSName
o name - OSName
o description - Specifies the name of the operating system on which
the traceroute measurement was launched. This element is ignored
if used in the "RequestMetadata".
o dataType - string255
o units - N/A
5.2.5.2. OSVersion
o name - OSVersion
o description - Specifies the OS version on which the traceroute
measurement was launched. This element is ignored if used in the
"RequestMetadata".
o dataType - string255
o units - N/A
5.2.5.3. ToolVersion
o name - ToolVersion
o description - Specifies the version of the traceroute tool
(requested to be used if in the "RequestMetadata" element,
actually used if in the "MeasurementMetadata" element).
o dataType - string255
o units - N/A
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
5.2.5.4. ToolName
o name - ToolName
o description - Specifies the name of the traceroute tool (requested
to be used if in the "RequestMetadata" element, actually used if
in the "MeasurementMetadata" element).
o dataType - string255
o units - N/A
6. Data Model for Storing Traceroute Measurements
For storing and transmitting information according to the information
model defined in the previous section, a data model is required that
specifies how to encode the elements of the information model.
There are several design choices for a data model. It can use a
binary or textual representation and it can be defined from scratch
or use already existing frameworks and data models. In general, the
use of already existing frameworks and models should be preferred.
Binary and textual representations both have advantages and
disadvantages. Textual representations are (with some limitations)
human-readable, while a binary representation consumes less resources
for storing, transmitting, and parsing data.
An already existing and closely related data model is the DISMAN-
TRACEROUTE-MIB module [RFC4560], which specifies a Structure of
Management Information version 2 (SMIv2) encoding [RFC2578],
[RFC2579], and [RFC2580] for transmitting traceroute measurement
information (configuration and results). This data model is well
suited and supported within network management systems, but as a
general format for storing and transmitting traceroute results, it is
not easily applicable.
Another binary representation would be an extension of traffic-flow
information encodings as specified for the IP Flow Information Export
(IPFIX) protocol [RFC5101], [RFC5102]. The IPFIX protocol is
extensible. However, the architecture behind this protocol [IPFIX]
is targeted at exporting passively measured flow information.
Therefore, some obstacles are expected when trying to use it for
transmitting traceroute measurement information.
For textual representations, using the eXtensible Markup Language
(XML) [W3C.REC-xml-20060816] is an obvious choice. XML supports
clean structuring of data and syntax checking of records. With some
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
limitations, it is human-readable. It is supported well by a huge
pool of tools and standards for generating, transmitting, parsing,
and converting it to other data formats. Its disadvantages are the
resource consumption for processing, storing, and transmitting
information. Since the expected data volumes related to traceroute
measurement in network operation and maintenance are not expected to
be extremely high, the inefficient usage of resources is not a
significant disadvantage. Therefore, XML was chosen as a basis for
the traceroute measurement information model that is specified in
this memo.
Section 7 contains the XML schema to be used as a template for
storing and/or exchanging traceroute measurement information. The
schema was designed in order to use an extensible approach based on
templates (pretty similar to how the IPFIX protocol is designed)
where the traceroute configuration elements (both the requested
parameters, "RequestMetadata", and the actual parameters used,
"MeasurementMetadata") are metadata to be referenced by results
information elements (data) by means of the "TestName" element (used
as a unique identifier, chosen in accordance to the specification of
[RFC4560]). Currently Open Grid Forum (OGF) is also using this
approach and cross-requirements have been analyzed. As a result of
this analysis, the XML schema contained in Section 7 is compatible
with the OGF schema since both were designed in a way that limits the
unnecessary redundancy and a simple one-to-one transformation between
the two exists.
7. XML Schema for Traceroute Measurements
This section presents the XML schema to be used as a template for
storing and/or exchanging traceroute measurement information. The
schema uses UTF-8 encoding as defined in [RFC3629]. In documents
conforming to the format presented here, an XML declaration SHOULD be
present specifying the version and the character encoding of the XML
document. The document should be encoded using UTF-8. Since some of
the strings can span multiple lines, [RFC5198] applies. XML
processing instructions and comments MUST be ignored. Mind that
whitespace is significant in XML when writing documents conforming to
this schema. Documents using the presented format must be valid
according to the XML schema shown in this section. Since elements of
type "_CtlType" may contain elements from unknown namespaces, those
elements MUST be ignored if their namespace is unknown to the
processor. Values for elements using the XML schema type "dateTime"
MUST be restricted to values defined in [RFC3339]. Future versions
of this format MAY extend this schema by creating a new schema that
redefines all or some of the data types and elements defined in this
version or by establishing a complete new schema.
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
Due to the limited line length some lines appear wrapped.
String restricted to 255
characters.unsignedByte with non zero
value.Specifies the AS number of a hop in the
traceroute path as a 32-bit number and indicates how the
mapping from IP address to AS number was
performed.
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
Specifies the address of a
hop in the traceroute measurement path. This
object is not allowed to be a DNS name. The
address type can be determined by examining the
"inetAddress" type name and the corresponding
element value.
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
Specifies the DNS name of
the "HopAddr" if it is available. If it is
not available, the element is
omitted.Specifies entries of the
MPLS label stack of a probe observed when the
probe arrived at the hop that replied to the
probe. This object contains one MPLS label stack
entry as a 32-bit value as it is observed on the
MPLS label stack. Contained in this single
number are the MPLS label, the Exp field, the S
flag, and the MPLS TTL value as specified in
[RFC3032]. If more than one MPLS label stack
entry is reported, then multiple instances of
elements of this type are used. They must be
ordered in the same order as on the label stack
with the top label stack entry being reported
first.If this element contains the
element "roundTripTime", this specifies the
amount of time measured in milliseconds from
when a probe was sent to when its response was
received or when it timed out. The value of
this element is reported as the truncation of
the number reported by the traceroute tool (the
output "< 1 ms" is therefore encoded as 0 ms).
If it contains the element
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
"roundTripTimeNotAvailable", it means either
the probe was lost because of a timeout or it
was not possible to transmit a probe.
Specifies the result of a
traceroute measurement made by the host for a
particular probe.Specifies the timestamp for
the time the response to the probe was
received at the interface.Specifies the raw output data
returned by the traceroute measurement for a
certain hop in a traceroute measurement path. It is
an implementation-dependent, printable string,
expected to be useful for a human interpreting the
traceroute results.Specifies the metadata for a traceroute
operation -- the parameters requested if used in
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
"RequestMetadata" or the actual parameters used if used in
"MeasurementMetadata".Specifies the name of a traceroute
measurement. This is not necessarily unique within any
well-defined scope (e.g., a specific host, initiator of
the traceroute measurement).Specifies the name of the operating
system on which the traceroute measurement was launched.
This element is ignored if used in the
"RequestMetadata".Specifies the OS version on which the
traceroute measurement was launched. This element is
ignored if used in the
"RequestMetadata".Specifies the version of the traceroute
tool (requested to be used if in the "RequestMetadata"
element, actually used if in the "MeasurementMetadata"
element).Specifies the name of the traceroute
tool (requested to be used if in the "RequestMetadata"
element, actually used if in the "MeasurementMetadata"
element).
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
In the "RequestMetadata" element, it
specifies the host address requested to be used in the
traceroute measurement. In the "MeasurementMetadata"
element, it specifies the host address used in the
traceroute measurement. The host address type can be
determined by examining the "inetAddress" type name and
the corresponding element value.In the "RequestMetadata" element
specifies if the optional bypassing of the route
table was enabled or not. In the "MeasurementMetadata"
element, specifies if the optional bypassing of the route
table was enabled or not. If enabled, the normal routing
tables will be bypassed and the probes will be sent
directly to a host on an attached network. If the host is
not on a directly attached network, an error is returned.
This option can be used to perform the traceroute
measurement to a local host through an interface that has
no route defined. This object can be used when the
setsockopt SOL_SOCKET SO_DONTROUTE option is supported and
set (see the POSIX standard IEEE.1003-1G.1997).
Specifies the size of the probes of a
traceroute measurement in octets (requested if in the
"RequestMetadata" element, actually used if in the
"MeasurementMetadata" element). If UDP datagrams are used
as probes, then the value contained in this object is
exact. If another protocol is used to transmit probes
(i.e., TCP or ICMP) for which the specified size is not
appropriate, then the implementation can use whatever
size (appropriate to the method) is closest to the
specified size. The maximum value for this object is
computed by subtracting the smallest possible IP header
size of 20 octets (IPv4 header with no options) and the
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
UDP header size of 8 octets from the maximum IP packet
size. An IP packet has a maximum size of 65535 octets
(excluding IPv6 jumbograms).Specifies the timeout value, in
seconds, for each probe of a traceroute measurement
(requested if in the "RequestMetadata" element, actually
used if in the "MeasurementMetadata"
element).Specifies the number of probes with the
same time-to-live (TTL) value that are sent for each host
(requested if in the "RequestMetadata" element, actually
used if in the "MeasurementMetadata"
element).
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
Specifies the base port used by the
traceroute measurement (requested if in the
"RequestMetadata" element, actually used if in the
"MeasurementMetadata" element).Specifies the maximum TTL value for the
traceroute measurement (requested if in the
"RequestMetadata" element, actually used if in the
"MeasurementMetadata" element).Specifies the value that was requested
to be stored in the Differentiated Services (DS) field in
the traceroute probe (if in the "RequestMetadata"
element). Specifies the value that was stored in the
Differentiated Services (DS) field in the traceroute
probe (if in the "MeasurementMetadata" element). The DS
field is defined as the Type of Service (TOS) octet in an
IPv4 header or as the Traffic Class octet in an IPv6
header (see Section 7 of [RFC2460]). The value of this
object must be a decimal integer in the range from 0 to
255. This option can be used to determine what effect an
explicit DS field setting has on a traceroute measurement
and its probes. Not all values are legal or meaningful.
Useful TOS octet values are probably 16 (low delay) and
8 (high throughput). Further references can be found in
[RFC2474] for the definition of the Differentiated
Services (DS) field and in [RFC1812] Section 5.3.2 for
Type of Service (TOS).
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 34]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
Specifies the IP address (which has to
be given as an IP number, not a hostname) as the source
address in traceroute probes (requested if in the
"RequestMetadata" element, actually used if in the
"MeasurementMetadata" element). On hosts with more than
one IP address, this option can be used in the
"RequestMetadata" element to force the source address to
be something other than the primary IP address of the
interface the probe is sent on; the value "unknown" means
the default address will be used. The address type can be
determined by examining the "inetAddress" type name and the
corresponding element value.Specifies the interface index as
defined in [RFC2863] that is requested to be used in the
traceroute measurement for sending the traceroute probes
(if in the "RequestMetadata" element). A value of 0
indicates that no specific interface is requested.
Specifies the interface index actually used (if in the
"MeasurementMetadata" element).Specifies implementation-dependent
options (requested if in the "RequestMetadata" element,
actually used if in the "MeasurementMetadata"
element).Specifies the maximum number of
consecutive timeouts allowed before terminating a
traceroute measurement (requested if in the
"RequestMetadata" element, actually used if in the
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 35]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
"MeasurementMetadata" element). A value of either 255
(maximum hop count/possible TTL value) or 0 indicates
that the function of terminating a remote traceroute
measurement when a specific number of consecutive
timeouts are detected was disabled. This element is
included to give full compatibility with [RFC4560]. No
known implementation of traceroute currently supports
it.Specifies if the don't fragment (DF)
flag in the IP header for a probe was enabled or not (if
in the "MeasurementMetadata" element). If in the
"RequestMetadata", it specifies if the flag was requested
to be enabled or not. Setting the DF flag can be used for
performing a manual PATH MTU test.Specifies the initial TTL value for a
traceroute measurement (requested if in the
"RequestMetadata" element, actually used if in the
"MeasurementMetadata" element). Such TTL setting is
intended to bypass the initial (often well-known) portion
of a path.Provides a description of the traceroute
measurement.Specifies the implementation method
used for the traceroute measurement (requested if in the
"RequestMetadata" element, actually used if in the
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 36]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
"MeasurementMetadata" element). It specifies if the
traceroute is using TCP, UDP, ICMP, or other types of
probes. It is possible to specify other types of probes
by using an element specified in another schema with a
different namespace.Contains the actual traceroute measurement
results.Specifies the name of a traceroute
measurement. This is not necessarily unique within any
well-defined scope (e.g., a specific host, initiator of
the traceroute measurement).Specifies the date and start time of
the traceroute measurement. This is the time when the
first probe was seen at the sending
interface.Specifies the IP address associated
with a "CtlTargetAddress" value when the destination
address is specified as a DNS name. The value of this
object should be "unknown" if a DNS name is not specified
or if a specified DNS name fails to resolve. The
address type can be determined by examining the "inetAddress"
type name and the corresponding element
value.
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 37]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
Specifies the date and end time of the
traceroute measurement. It is either the time when the
response to the last probe of the traceroute measurement
was received or the time when the last probe of the
traceroute measurement was sent plus the relative timeout
(in case of a missing response).
8. Security Considerations
Security considerations discussed in this section are grouped into
considerations related to conducting traceroute measurements and
considerations related to storing and transmitting traceroute
measurement information.
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 38]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
This memo does not specify an implementation of a traceroute tool.
Neither does it specify a certain procedure for storing traceroute
measurement information. Still, it is considered desirable to
discuss related security issues below.
8.1. Conducting Traceroute Measurements
Conducting Internet measurements can raise both security and privacy
concerns. Traceroute measurements, in which traffic is injected into
the network, can be abused for denial-of-service attacks disguised as
legitimate measurement activity.
Measurement parameters MUST be carefully selected so that the
measurements inject trivial amounts of additional traffic into the
networks they measure. If they inject "too much" traffic, they can
skew the results of the measurement, and in extreme cases cause
congestion and denial of service.
The measurements themselves could be harmed by routers giving
measurement traffic a different priority than "normal" traffic, or by
an attacker injecting artificial measurement traffic. If routers can
recognize measurement traffic and treat it separately, the
measurements will not reflect actual user traffic. If an attacker
injects artificial traffic that is accepted as legitimate, the loss
rate will be artificially lowered. Therefore, the measurement
methodologies SHOULD include appropriate techniques to reduce the
probability that measurement traffic can be distinguished from
"normal" traffic.
Authentication techniques, such as digital signatures, may be used
where appropriate to guard against injected traffic attacks.
8.2. Securing Traceroute Measurement Information
Traceroute measurement information is not considered highly
sensitive. Still, it may contain sensitive information on network
paths, routing states, used IP addresses, and roundtrip times that
operators of networks may want to protect for business or security
reasons.
It is thus important to control access to information acquired by
conducting traceroute measurements, particularly when transmitting it
over a networks but also when storing it. It is RECOMMENDED that a
transmission of traceroute measurement information over a network
uses appropriate protection mechanisms for preserving privacy,
integrity, and authenticity. It is further RECOMMENDED that secure
authentication and authorization are used for protecting stored
traceroute measurement information.
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 39]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
9. IANA Considerations
This document uses URNs to describe an XML namespace and an XML
schema for traceroute measurement information storing and
transmission, conforming to a registry mechanism described in
[RFC3688]. Two URI assignments have been made.
1. Registration for the IPPM traceroute measurements namespace
* URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:traceroute-1.0
* Registrant Contact: IESG
* XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML.
2. Registration for the IPPM traceroute measurements schema
* URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:traceroute-1.0
* Registrant Contact: IESG
* XML: See Section 7 of this document.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G., Ed. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the
Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 40]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
[RFC4001] Daniele, M., Haberman, B., Routhier, S., and J.
Schoenwaelder, "Textual Conventions for Internet Network
Addresses", RFC 4001, February 2005.
[RFC4560] Quittek, J. and K. White, "Definitions of Managed Objects
for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations",
RFC 4560, June 2006.
[RFC5198] Klensin, J. and M. Padlipsky, "Unicode Format for Network
Interchange", RFC 5198, March 2008.
10.2. Informative References
[IEEE.1003-1G.1997]
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
"Protocol Independent Interfaces", IEEE Standard 1003.1G,
March 1997.
[IPFIX] Sadasivan, G., "Architecture for IP Flow Information
Export", Work in Progress, September 2006.
[RFC1812] Baker, F., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
RFC 1812, June 1995.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
December 1998.
[RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management Information
Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999.
[RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Textual Conventions for SMIv2",
STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999.
[RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,
"Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580,
April 1999.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
January 2004.
[RFC5101] Claise, B., "Specification of the IP Flow Information
Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic
Flow Information", RFC 5101, January 2008.
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 41]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
[RFC5102] Quittek, J., Bryant, S., Claise, B., Aitken, P., and J.
Meyer, "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export",
RFC 5102, January 2008.
[W3C.REC-xml-20060816]
Bray, T., Paoli, J., Maler, E., Sperberg-McQueen, C., and
F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fourth
Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium FirstEdition REC-xml-
20060816, August 2006,
.
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028]
Biron, P. and A. Malhotra, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes
Second Edition", World Wide Web Consortium
Recommendation REC-xmlschema-2-20041028, October 2004,
.
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 42]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
Appendix A. Traceroute Default Configuration Parameters
This section lists traceroute measurement configuration parameters as
well as their defaults on various platforms and illustrates how
widely they may vary. This document considers four major traceroute
tool implementations and compares them based on configurable
parameters and default values. The LINUX (SUSE 9.1), BSD (FreeBSD
7.0), and UNIX (SunOS 5.9) implementations are based on UDP
datagrams, while the WINDOWS (XP SP2) one uses ICMP Echoes. The
comparison is summarized in the following table, where an N/A in the
option column means that such parameter is not configurable for the
specific implementation. A comprehensive comparison of available
implementations is outside the scope of this document; however, by
sampling a few different implementations, it can be observed that
they can differ quite significantly in terms of configurable
parameters and also default values. Note that in the following table
only those options that are available in at least two of the
considered implementations are reported.
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| OS |Option| Description | Default |
+--------+------+-------------------------------+---------+
| LINUX | -m |Specify the maximum TTL used | 30 |
|--------+------|in traceroute probes. |---------|
| FreeBSD| -m | | OS var |
|--------+------| |---------|
| UNIX | -m | | 30 |
|--------+------| |---------|
| WINDOWS| -h | | 30 |
+--------+------+-------------------------------+---------+
| LINUX | -n |Display hop addresses | - |
|--------+------|numerically rather than |---------|
| FreeBSD| -n |symbolically. | - |
|--------+------| |---------|
| UNIX | -n | | - |
|--------+------| |---------|
| WINDOWS| -d | | - |
+--------+------+-------------------------------+---------+
| LINUX | -w |Set the time to wait for a | 3 sec |
|--------+------|response to a probe. |---------|
| FreeBSD| -w | | 5 sec |
|--------+------| |---------|
| UNIX | -w | | 5 sec |
|--------+------| |---------|
| WINDOWS| -w | | 4 sec |
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 43]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
+--------+------+-------------------------------+---------+
| LINUX | N/A |Specify a loose source route | - |
|--------+------|gateway (to direct the |---------|
| FreeBSD| -g |traceroute probes through | - |
|--------+------|routers not necessarily in |---------|
| UNIX | -g | the path). | - |
|--------+------| |---------|
| WINDOWS| -g | | - |
+--------+------+-------------------------------+---------+
| LINUX | -p |Set the base UDP port number | 33434 |
|------- +------|used in traceroute probes |---------|
| FreeBSD| -p |(UDP port = base + nhops - 1). | 33434 |
|--------+------| |---------|
| UNIX | -p | | 33434 |
|--------+------| |---------|
| WINDOWS| N/A | | - |
+--------+------+-------------------------------+---------+
| LINUX | -q |Set the number of probes per | 3 |
|--------+------|TTL. |---------|
| FreeBSD| -q | | 3 |
|--------+------| |---------|
| UNIX | -q | | 3 |
|--------+------| |---------|
| WINDOWS| N/A | | 3 |
+--------+------+-------------------------------+---------+
| LINUX | -S |Set the IP source address in |IP |
|--------+------|outgoing probes to the |address |
| FreeBSD| -s |specified value. |of the |
|--------+------| |out |
| UNIX | -s | |interface|
|--------+------| | |
| WINDOWS| N/A | | |
+--------+------+-------------------------------+---------+
| LINUX | -t |Set the Type of Service (TOS) | 0 |
|--------+------|in the probes to the specified |---------|
| FreeBSD| -t |value. | 0 |
|--------+------| |---------|
| UNIX | -t | | 0 |
|--------+------| |---------|
| WINDOWS| N/A | | 0 |
+--------+------+-------------------------------+---------+
| LINUX | -v |Verbose output: received ICMP | - |
|--------+------|packets other than |---------|
| FreeBSD| -v |TIME_EXCEEDED and | - |
|--------+------|UNREACHABLE are listed. |---------|
| UNIX | -v | | - |
|--------+------| |---------|
| WINDOWS| N/A | | - |
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 44]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
+--------+------+-------------------------------+---------+
| LINUX | N/A |Set the time (in msec) to | - |
|--------+------|pause between probes. |---------|
| FreeBSD| -z | | 0 |
|--------+------| |---------|
| UNIX | -P | | 0 |
|--------+------| |---------|
| WINDOWS| N/A | | - |
+--------+------+-------------------------------+---------+
| LINUX | -r |Bypass the normal routing | - |
|--------+------|tables and send directly to a |---------|
| FreeBSD| -r |host on attached network. | - |
|--------+------| |---------|
| UNIX | -r | | - |
|--------+------| |---------|
| WINDOWS| N/A | | - |
+--------+------+-------------------------------+---------+
| LINUX | -f |Set the initial TTL for the | 1 |
|--------+------|first probe. |---------|
| FreeBSD| -f | | 1 |
|--------+------| |---------|
| UNIX | -f | | 1 |
|--------+------| |---------|
| WINDOWS| N/A | | 1 |
+--------+------+-------------------------------+---------+
| LINUX | -F |Set the "don't fragment" bit. | - |
|--------+------| |---------|
| FreeBSD| -F | | - |
|--------+------| |---------|
| UNIX | -F | | - |
|--------+------| |---------|
| WINDOWS| N/A | | - |
+--------+------+-------------------------------+---------+
| LINUX | N/A |Enable socket level debugging. | - |
|--------+------| |---------|
| FreeBSD| -d | | - |
|--------+------| |---------|
| UNIX | -d | | - |
|--------+------| |---------|
| WINDOWS| N/A | | - |
+--------+------+-------------------------------+---------+
| LINUX | N/A |Use ICMP Echoes instead of UDP | - |
|--------+------|datagrams. |---------|
| FreeBSD| -I | | - |
|--------+------| |---------|
| UNIX | -I | | - |
|--------+------| |---------|
| WINDOWS| N/A | | - |
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 45]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
+--------+------+-------------------------------+---------+
| LINUX | -I |Specify a network interface to | - |
|--------+------|obtain the IP address for |---------|
| FreeBSD| -i |outgoing IP packets | - |
|--------+------|(alternative to option -s). |---------|
| UNIX | -i | | - |
|--------+------| |---------|
| WINDOWS| N/A | | - |
+--------+------+-------------------------------+---------+
| LINUX | N/A |Toggle checksum. | - |
|--------+------| |---------|
| FreeBSD| -x | | - |
|--------+------| |---------|
| UNIX | -x | | - |
|--------+------| |---------|
| WINDOWS| N/A | | - |
+--------+------+-------------------------------+---------+
| LINUX | - |As optional last parameter, |Depends |
|--------+------|LINUX, FreeBSD, and UNIX |on |
| FreeBSD| - |implementations allow |implement|
|--------+------|specifying the probe datagram |ation. |
| UNIX | - |length for outgoing probes. | |
|--------+------| | |
| WINDOWS| N/A | | |
+--------+------+-------------------------------+---------+
A.1. Alternative Traceroute Implementations
As stated above, the widespread use of firewalls might prevent UDP-
or ICMP-based traceroutes to completely trace the path to a
destination since traceroute probes might end up being filtered. In
some cases, such limitation might be overcome by sending instead TCP
packets to specific ports that hosts located behind the firewall are
listening for connections on. TCP-based implementations use TCP,
SYN, or FIN probes and listen for TIME_EXCEEDED messages, TCP RESET,
and other messages from firewalls and gateways on the path. On the
other hand, some firewalls filter out TCP SYN packets to prevent
denial-of-service attacks; therefore, the actual advantage of using
TCP instead of UDP traceroute depends mainly on firewall
configurations, which are not known in advance. A detailed analysis
of TCP-based traceroute tools and measurements is outside the scope
of this document; regardless, for completeness reasons, the
information model also supports the storing of TCP-based traceroute
measurements.
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 46]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
Appendix B. Known Problems with Traceroute
B.1. Compatibility between Traceroute Measurement Results and IPPM
Metrics
Because of implementation choices, a known inconsistency exists
between the round-trip delay metric defined by the IPPM working group
in RFC 2681 and the results returned by the current traceroute tool
implementations. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the traceroute
tool implementations will implement the standard definition in the
near future. The only possibility is therefore to compare results of
different traceroute measurements with each other; in order to do
this, specifications both of the operating system (name and version)
and of the traceroute tool version used were added to the metadata
elements in order to help in comparing metrics between two different
traceroute measurement results (if run using the same operating
system and the same version of the tool). Moreover, the traceroute
tool has built-in configurable mechanisms like timeouts and can
experience problems related to the crossing of firewalls; therefore,
some of the packets that traceroute sends out end up being timeout or
filtered. As a consequence, it might not be possible to trace the
path to a node or there might not be a complete enough set of probes
describing the RTT to reach it.
Appendix C. Differences to DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB
For performing remote traceroute operations at managed node, the IETF
has standardized the DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB module in [RFC4560]. This
module allows:
o retrieving capability information of the traceroute tool
implementation at the managed node;
o configuring traceroute measurements to be performed;
o retrieving information about ongoing and completed traceroute
measurements;
o retrieving traceroute measurement statistics.
The traceroute storage format described in this document has
significant overlaps with this MIB module. Particularly, the models
for the traceroute measurement configuration and for the results from
completed measurements are almost identical. But for other parts of
the DISMAN-TRACEROUTE MIB module there is no need to model them in a
traceroute measurement storage format. Particularly, the capability
information, information about ongoing measurements, and measurement
statistics are not covered by the DISMAN traceroute storage model.
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 47]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
Concerning traceroute measurements and their results, there are
structural differences between the two models caused by the different
choices for the encoding of the specification. For DISMAN-
TRACEROUTE-MIB, the Structure of Management Information (SMIv2, STD
58, RFC 2578 [RFC2578]) was used, while the IPPM traceroute
measurement data model is encoded using XML.
This difference in structure implies that the DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB
module contains SMI-specific information elements (managed objects)
that concern tables of managed objects (specification, entry creation
and deletion, status retrieval) that are not required for the XML-
encoded traceroute measurement data model.
But for most of the remaining information elements that concern
configuration of traceroute measurements and results of completed
measurements, the semantics are identical between the DISMAN-
TRACEROUTE-MIB module and the traceroute measurement data model.
There are very few exceptions to this; these are listed below. Also,
naming of information elements is identical between both models with
a few exceptions. For the traceroute measurement data model, a few
information elements have been added, some because of the different
structure and some to provide additional information on completed
measurements.
C.1. Scope
There are some basic differences in nature and application between
MIB modules and XML documents. This results in two major differences
of scope between the DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB module and the traceroute
measurement data model.
The first difference is the "traceRouteResultsTable" contained in the
DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB module. This table allows online observation
of status and progress of an ongoing traceroute measurement. This
highly dynamic information is not included in the traceroute
measurement data model because it has not been envisioned to use the
model for dynamically reporting progress of individual traceroute
measurements. The traceroute measurement data model is rather
intended to be used for reporting completed traceroute measurements.
The second difference is due to the fact that information in a MIB is
typically tied to a local node hosting the MIB instance. The
"RequestMetadata" element specified in the traceroute measurement
data model can be used for specifying a measurement request that may
be applied to several probes in a network. This concept does not
exist in the DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB module.
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 48]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
For the remaining elements in the DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB module and in
the traceroute measurement data model, there is a very good match
between the two worlds. The "traceRouteCtlTable" corresponds to the
"MeasurementMetadata" element, and the combination of the
"traceRouteProbeHistoryTable" and the "traceRouteHopsTable"
corresponds to a collection of "MeasurementResult" elements.
C.2. Naming
Basically, names in both models are chosen using the same naming
conventions.
For the traceroute measurement configuration information, all names,
such as "CtlProbesPerHop", are identical in both models except for
the traceRoute prefix that was removed to avoid unnecessary
redundancy in the XML file and for "CtlDataSize", which was renamed
to "CtlProbeDataSize" for clarification in the traceroute measurement
data model.
Results of measurements in the DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB modules are
distributed over two tables, the "traceRouteResultsTable" contains
mainly information about ongoing measurements and the
"traceRouteProbeHistoryTable" contains only information about
completed measurements. According to the SMIv2 naming conventions,
names of information elements in these tables have different prefixes
("traceRouteResults" and "traceRouteProbeHistory"). Since the
traceroute measurement data model only reports on completed
measurements, this separation is not needed anymore and the prefix
"Results" is used for all related information elements.
Beyond that, there are only a few changes in element names. The
renaming actions include:
o "traceRouteProbeHistoryResponse" to "ProbeRoundTripTime";
o "traceRouteProbeHistoryHAddr" to "HopAddr";
o "traceRouteProbeHistoryTime" to "ResultsEndDateAndTime";
o "traceRouteProbeHistoryLastRC" to "ResultsHopRawOutputData".
C.3. Semantics
The semantics were changed for two information elements only.
For "traceRouteProbeHistoryResponse" in the DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB, a
value of 0 indicates that it is not possible to transmit a probe.
For the traceroute measurement data model, a value of 0 for element
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 49]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
"RoundTripTime" indicates that the measured time was less than one
millisecond. For the case that it was not possible to transmit a
probe, a string is used that indicates the problem.
For "traceRouteCtlIfIndex" in the DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB, a value of 0
indicates that the option to set the index is not available. This
was translated to the traceroute measurement data model, such that a
value of 0 for this element indicates that the used interface is
unknown.
The element "traceRouteProbeHistoryLastRC" in the DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-
MIB was replaced by element "ResultsHopRawOutputData". While
"traceRouteProbeHistoryLastRC" just reports a reply code,
"ResultsHopRawOutputData" reports the full raw output data (per hop)
produced by the traceroute measurement that was used.
C.4. Additional Information Elements
Only a few information elements have been added to the model of the
DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB module.
o For providing information on the MPLS label stack entries of a
probe in the traceroute measurement path, "MPLSLabelStackEntry"
was added.
o For providing additional timestamp beyond "ResultsEndDateAndTime",
"ResultsStartDateAndTime" and "Time" were added.
o For providing DNS names at the time of the execution of the
traceroute for each "HopAddr" (which may change over time),
"HopName" was added.
Appendix D. Traceroute Examples with XML Representation
This section shows some examples of traceroute applications. In
addition, the encoding of requests and results is shown for some of
those examples. Also, note that in these XML examples some lines
appear wrapped due to the limited length of line.
A typical traceroute on a LINUX system looks like the following:
# traceroute -f 4 www.example 1500
traceroute to ww.example (192.0.2.42), 30 hops max, 1500-byte packets
5 out.host1.example (192.0.2.254) 6.066 ms 5.625 ms 6.095 ms
6 rtr4.host6.example (192.0.2.142) 6.979 ms 6.221 ms 7.368 ms
7 hop7.rtr9.example (192.0.2.11) 16.165 ms 15.347 ms 15.514 ms
8 192.0.2.222 (192.0.2.222) 32.796 ms 28.723 ms 26.988 ms
9 in.example (192.0.2.123) 15.861 ms 16.262 ms 17.610 ms
10 in.example (192.0.2.123)(N!) 17.391 ms * *
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 50]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
This traceroute ignores the first 4 hops and uses 1500-byte packets
including the header. It does not reach its goal since the last
listed hop says that the network is not reachable (N!). The XML
representation for this trace follows:
Example 1www.example14724Show how it encodes in XMLExample 1Linux2.6.16.54-0.2.5-smp i3861.0traceroutewww.example1472
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 51]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
192.0.2.124Show how it encodes in XMLExample 12008-05-16T14:22:34+02:00
192.0.2.42192.0.2.254out.host1.example6responseReceived2008-05-16T14:22:35+02:00192.0.2.254out.host1.example5responseReceived2008-05-16T14:22:35+02:00192.0.2.254out.host1.example
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 52]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
6responseReceived2008-05-16T14:22:35+02:00 5 out.host1.example (192.0.2.254) 6.06
6 ms 5.625 ms 6.095 ms192.0.2.142rtr4.host6.example6responseReceived2008-05-16T14:22:36+02:00192.0.2.142rtr4.host6.example6responseReceived2008-05-16T14:22:36+02:00192.0.2.142rtr4.host6.example7responseReceived2008-05-16T14:22:37+02:00 6 rtr4.host6.example (192.0.2.142) 6.9
79 ms 6.221 ms 7.368 ms
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 53]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
192.0.2.11hop7.rtr9.example16responseReceived2008-05-16T14:22:37+02:00192.0.2.11hop7.rtr9.example15responseReceived2008-05-16T14:22:38+02:00192.0.2.11hop7.rtr9.example15responseReceived2008-05-16T14:22:38+02:00 7 hop7.rtr9.example (192.0.2.11) 16.16
5 ms 15.347 ms 15.514 ms192.0.2.22232responseReceived2008-05-16T14:22:39+02:00
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 54]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
192.0.2.22238responseReceived2008-05-16T14:22:39+02:00192.0.2.22226responseReceived2008-05-16T14:22:39+02:00 8 192.0.2.222 (192.0.2.222) 32.796 ms
28.723 ms 26.988 ms192.0.2.123in.example15responseReceived2008-05-16T14:22:40+02:00192.0.2.123in.example16responseReceived2008-05-16T14:22:40+02:00192.0.2.123
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 55]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
in.example17responseReceived2008-05-16T14:22:40+02:00 9 in.example (192.0.2.123) 15.861 ms
16.262 ms 17.610 ms192.0.2.123in.example17noRouteToTarget2008-05-16T14:22:41+02:00192.0.2.123in.examplerequestTimedOut2008-05-16T14:22:44+02:00192.0.2.123in.examplerequestTimedOut2008-05-16T14:22:44+02:0010 in.example (192.0.2.123)(N!) 17.391
ms * *
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 56]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
2008-05-16T14:22:44+02:00
The second example was generated on an OpenBSD system. On that
system, the traceroute looks like the following:
# traceroute -P tcp w2.example 128
traceroute to w2.example (192.0.2.254), 64 hops max, 160-byte packets
1 router1.example.org (192.0.2.22) 0.486 ms 0.486 ms 0.482 ms
2 router7.example.org (192.0.2.1) 3.27 ms 1.420 ms 1.873 ms
3 hop0.c.example (192.0.2.105) 3.177 ms 3.258 ms 3.859 ms
4 hop6.c.example (192.0.2.107) 5.994 ms 4.607 ms 5.678 ms
5 hop3.c.example (192.0.2.111) 20.341 ms 20.732 ms 19.505 ms
6 in.example.net (192.0.2.222) 20.333 ms 19.174 ms 19.856 ms
7 egress.example.net (192.0.2.227) 20.268 ms 21.79 ms 19.992 ms
8 routerin.example (192.0.2.253) 19.983 ms 19.931 ms 19.894 ms
9 routerdmz.example (192.0.2.249) 20.943 ms !X * 19.829 ms !X
It was executed with the TCP protocol and 128-byte packets (plus
header). The traceroute ended at hop 9 because the packets are
administratively filtered (!X). A corresponding XML representation
follows:
Example 2w2.example128
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 57]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
Show how it encodes in XMLExample 2OpenBSD4.1 i386traceroutew2.example128192.0.2.421Show how it encodes in XMLExample 22008-05-14T09:57:11+02:00
192.0.2.254192.0.2.22router1.example.org
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 58]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
0responseReceived2008-05-14T09:57:13+02:00192.0.2.22router1.example.org0responseReceived2008-05-14T09:57:13+02:00192.0.2.22router1.example.org0responseReceived2008-05-14T09:57:13+02:00192.0.2.1router7.example.org3responseReceived2008-05-14T09:57:13+02:00192.0.2.1router7.example.org1
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 59]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
responseReceived2008-05-14T09:57:13+02:00192.0.2.1router7.example.org1responseReceived2008-05-14T09:57:14+02:00192.0.2.105hop0.c.example3responseReceived2008-05-14T09:57:14+02:00192.0.2.105hop0.c.example3responseReceived2008-05-14T09:57:14+02:00192.0.2.105hop0.c.example3responseReceived
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 60]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
2008-05-14T09:57:14+02:00192.0.2.107hop6.c.example5responseReceived2008-05-14T09:57:15+02:00192.0.2.107hop6.c.example4responseReceived2008-05-14T09:57:16+02:00192.0.2.107hop6.c.example5responseReceived2008-05-14T09:57:16+02:00192.0.2.111hop3.c.example20responseReceived
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 61]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
2008-05-14T09:57:17+02:00192.0.2.111hop3.c.example20responseReceived2008-05-14T09:57:18+02:00192.0.2.111hop3.c.example19responseReceived2008-05-14T09:57:19+02:00192.0.2.222in.example.net20responseReceived2008-05-14T09:57:20+02:00192.0.2.222in.example.net19responseReceived2008-05-14T09:57:20+02:00
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 62]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
192.0.2.222in.example.net19responseReceived2008-05-14T09:57:21+02:00192.0.2.227egress.example.net20responseReceived2008-05-14T09:57:22+02:00192.0.2.227egress.example.net21responseReceived2008-05-14T09:57:22+02:00192.0.2.227egress.example.net19responseReceived2008-05-14T09:57:23+02:00
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 63]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
192.0.2.253routerin.example19responseReceived2008-05-14T09:57:24+02:00192.0.2.253routerin.example19responseReceived2008-05-14T09:57:24+02:00192.0.2.253routerin.example19responseReceived2008-05-14T09:57:25+02:00192.0.2.249routerdmz.example20unknown2008-05-14T09:57:26+02:00
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 64]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
192.0.2.249routerdmz.examplerequestTimedOut2008-05-14T09:57:26+02:00192.0.2.249routerdmz.example19unknown2008-05-14T09:57:30+02:002008-05-14T09:57:30+02:00
The third and last example is based on the Microsoft Windows pendant
of traceroute. On an MS Windows system, the command is called
"tracert" and typically looks as follows:
# tracert -h 10 www.example.org
Tracing route to www.example.org [192.0.2.11]
over a maximum of 10 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms 8 ms 192.0.2.99
2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms r1.provider4.example [192.0.2.102]
3 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms rtr8.provider8.example [192.0.2.254]
4 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms hop11.hoster7.example [192.0.2.4]
5 2 ms 3 ms 1 ms sw6.provider2.example [192.0.2.201]
6 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms out.provider2.example [192.0.2.111]
7 * 6 ms 5 ms 192.0.2.123
8 5 ms 5 ms 5 ms 192.0.2.42
9 94 ms 95 ms 95 ms ingress.example.org [192.0.2.199]
10 168 ms 169 ms 169 ms 192.0.2.44
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 65]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
Trace complete.
In this example, the trace was limited to 10 hops, so the tenth and
last hop of this example was not the final destination. Applying the
XML schema defined in this document, the trace could look as follows:
Example 3www.example.org10Show how it encodes in XMLExample 3WindowsXP SP2 32-bittracertwww.example.org
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 66]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
10192.0.2.1423Show how it encodes in XMLExample 32008-05-14T11:03:09+02:00
192.0.2.11192.0.2.991responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:09+02:00192.0.2.991responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:09+02:00192.0.2.99
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 67]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
8responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:09+02:00192.0.2.102r1.provider4.example0responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:09+02:00192.0.2.102r1.provider4.example0responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:09+02:00192.0.2.102r1.provider4.example0responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:09+02:00192.0.2.254rtr8.provider8.example
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 68]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
0responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:09+02:00192.0.2.254rtr8.provider8.example0responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:09+02:00192.0.2.254rtr8.provider8.example0responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:09+02:00192.0.2.4hop11.hoster7.example1responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:09+02:00192.0.2.4hop11.hoster7.example1
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 69]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:10+02:00192.0.2.4hop11.hoster7.example1responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:10+02:00192.0.2.201sw6.provider2.example2responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:10+02:00192.0.2.201sw6.provider2.example3responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:11+02:00192.0.2.201sw6.provider2.example1responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:11+02:00
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 70]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
192.0.2.111out.provider2.example3responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:11+02:00192.0.2.111out.provider2.example3responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:11+02:00192.0.2.111out.provider2.example3responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:12+02:00192.0.2.123requestTimedOut2008-05-14T11:03:14+02:00
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 71]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
192.0.2.1236responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:15+02:00192.0.2.1235responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:16+02:00192.0.2.425responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:17+02:00192.0.2.425responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:17+02:00192.0.2.425
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 72]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:17+02:00192.0.2.199ingress.example.org94responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:19+02:00192.0.2.199ingress.example.org95responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:19+02:00192.0.2.199ingress.example.org95responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:19+02:00192.0.2.44168
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 73]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:20+02:00192.0.2.44169responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:21+02:00192.0.2.44169responseReceived2008-05-14T11:03:23+02:002008-05-14T11:03:23+02:00
The three examples given in this section are intended to give an
impression of how a trace could be represented in XML. The
representation generated by an implementation may differ from the
examples here depending on the system and the capabilities of the
traceroute implementation.
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 74]
RFC 5388 Traceroute Storage Format December 2008
Authors' Addresses
Saverio Niccolini
NEC Laboratories Europe, NEC Europe Ltd.
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
Heidelberg 69115
Germany
Phone: +49 (0) 6221 4342 118
EMail: saverio.niccolini@nw.neclab.eu
URI: http://www.nw.neclab.eu
Sandra Tartarelli
NEC Laboratories Europe, NEC Europe Ltd.
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
Heidelberg 69115
Germany
Phone: +49 (0) 6221 4342 132
EMail: sandra.tartarelli@nw.neclab.eu
URI: http://www.nw.neclab.eu
Juergen Quittek
NEC Laboratories Europe, NEC Europe Ltd.
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
Heidelberg 69115
Germany
Phone: +49 (0) 6221 4342 115
EMail: quittek@nw.neclab.eu
URI: http://www.nw.neclab.eu
Thomas Dietz
NEC Laboratories Europe, NEC Europe Ltd.
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
Heidelberg 69115
Germany
Phone: +49 (0) 6221 4342 128
EMail: thomas.dietz@nw.neclab.eu
URI: http://www.nw.neclab.eu
Martin Swany
Dept. of Computer and Information Sciences
University of Delaware
Newark DE 19716
U.S.A.
EMail: swany@UDel.Edu
Niccolini, et al. Standards Track [Page 75]